Delegates to GCSS-8/GMEF met in
ministerial consultations to address the theme “environmental dimension
of water, sanita­tion, and human settlements.” The COW met in morning
and after­noon sessions to discuss: assessment, monitoring and early
warning; outcomes of intergovernmental meetings of relevance to GC/GMEF;
and several draft decisions. The open-ended drafting group began
consideration of the draft omnibus decision on IEG.

PLENARY

MINISTERIAL CONSULTATIONS: Ministers discussed
issues regarding: holistic sanitation; wastewater re-use technolo­gies;
managing and financing the environmental dimension of sanitation; and
municipal wastewater issues including the links between the ecosystem
approach in IWRM and poverty. Interven­tions addressed issues regarding
the broad scope of poverty allevi­ation, including: regional
cooperation; ecosystem management; links between sanitation and health;
local empower­ment, technology transfer and awareness building;
population growth; the relationship between environmental protection and
employment; and preserving environment as a resource for economic
development. Following the interventions, GC Presi­dent Ntagazwa said
UNEP should transmit the results of the consultations to CSD-12.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

ASSESSMENT, MONITORING AND EARLY WARNING: UNEP
Deputy Executive Director Shafqat Kaka­khel introduced the Secretariat’s
progress report on the implemen­tation of GC decisions (UNEP/GCSS.VIII/6).
Steve Lonergan, UNEP, presented a review of the state of the
environment, high­lighting: armed conflicts, indicators of environmental
change, environmental impacts on SIDS; dust and sandstorms; atmo­spheric
brown cloud; and transboundary issues for shared water. SUDAN drew
attention to the impact of conflicts on environment rehabilitation.
KENYA called for technical, financial, capacity building, and assessment
and monitoring assistance to developing countries. CUBA requested the
full and continued implementation of decision 22/13 on SIDS.

On dust
and sandstorms, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA noted that the problem does not
only affect North East Asia but also other regions and, together with
CHINA and MONGOLIA, called for further cooperation among international
organizations. The LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES said that UNEP should attach
more importance to this issue. Many speakers supported strengthening
UNEP’s role in keeping the world environment under review. With regard
to the GEO, CHINA said that future GEOs should enhance links and
collaboration with other global and regional agencies in order to become
an authority for decision making. NIGERIA noted the need for data to be
more representative. TONGA stressed the need for capacity building in
order for devel­oping countries to participate in the GEO. The WOMEN’S
ENVI­RONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION appealed for a review of
linkages between different environmental changes and problems, with a
specific focus on gender.

OUTCOME OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS OF RELEVANCE TO THE GC/GMEF:
The UNEP Secretariat introduced the documents
for this agenda item (UNEP/ GCSS.VIII/3 and UNEP/GCSS.VIII/INF/7). Many
delegates addressed the importance of regional cooperation and the
“Marra­kech process” on sustainable consumption and production.

On the
global marine environment assessment, JAPAN cautioned that this process
should avoid overlaps and duplication with other similar assessment
programmes. He also called on UNEP to play an active role in the 2005
World Conference on Disaster Reduction.

On SAICM,
URUGUAY said PrepCom II should analyze the SAICM principles, its
international scope and relationship with MEAs and the chemicals
security forum. The US said SAICM should focus on capacity building in
developing countries and place chemicals management “front and center”
of the develop­ment agenda. JAPAN emphasized that SAICM should be
trans­parent and include the participation of all stakeholders.

Statements from IGOs and NGOs: On assessment
and strengthening the science base of UNEP, the WMO said there is a need
to reduce the overlap between initiatives of international bodies, and
expressed its willingness to work with UNEP to develop educational tools
on climate and water, and assist UNEP to strengthen the weather,
hydrology and climate aspects of the GEO. The RAMSAR SECRETARIAT
expressed the need to map the assessment landscape and the science base
of MEAs.

On the
intergovernmental strategic plan on technology support and capacity
building, the UNFCCC SECRETARIAT said that the capacity building
frameworks adopted by its COP could be a useful input into the plan. He
said there was a need for greater collaboration with UNEP on the issue
of education, training and public awareness. The CCD SECRETARIAT noted
the COP-6 decision on capacity building, which invites UNEP to address
the capacity building needs of affected developing countries.

On MEAs
and the EMG, the UNFCCC SECRETARIAT high­lighted the work of the Joint
Liaison Group of the three Rio Conventions and stressed the key role of
the EMG. The INTER­NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CARING COMMUNITIES emphasized
synergies with the InterAcademy Council, the place­ment of older persons
in development agendas, and the improved use of the UNEP focal point on
sports.

Draft decision on small island developing States:TUVALU presented its draft decision on SIDS, submitted
with the Bahamas (UNEP/GCSS/VIII/CW/CRP.5). Many countries spoke in
favor of the decision. The draft decision was adopted with minor
amend­ments from the US and Australia.

Draft decision on waste management:
MOROCCO intro­duced its draft decision on waste management (UNEP/GCSS/VIII/
CRP.3). The draft was supported by G-77/CHINA. The EU, the US, CANADA,
JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, the RUSSIAN FEDERA­TION, NORWAY and NEW ZEALAND said
the draft should be deferred to GC-23 for consideration, expressing
concerns over its implications on UNEP’s programme of work and budget.
TURK­MENISTAN, ARMENIA, and UZBEKISTAN said the draft should include
references to countries with economies in transition. Chair Van Gool
requested Norway to lead informal consultations on the substance of the
draft and report to the COW.

Draft decision on education and the Earth Charter:
COSTA RICA introduced its draft decision on education for sustainable
development in line with the Earth Charter (UNEP/GCSS/VIII/ CW/CRP.4).
Several delegations said more time was needed to examine the draft.
Chair Van Gool requested Costa Rica to consult on the draft over the
coming months and submit it for consideration at GC-23.

Draft decision on integrated water resource management:SWITZERLANDpresented the draft
decision on integrated water resource management submitted with Mexico
and the Republic of Korea (UNEP/GCSS/VIII/CRP.6). EGYPT, COLOMBIA, G-77/
CHINA, SUDAN and ARGENTINA requested more time to examine the proposal.
AZERBAIJAN and NEW ZEALAND called for clarification regarding the
compensation schemes noted in the draft.

DRAFTING GROUP: The drafting group, chaired by
Ngurah Swayaya (Indonesia), completed two readings of the Bureau’s
proposal (UNEP/GCSS/VIII/CW/CRP.2), which contains elements for a draft
decision on implementation of decision SS.VII/ 1 on IEG. A delegation
voiced concern regarding the lack of proper consultation on the proposal
and its late circulation. Negotiations went late into the night.

On
universal membership of the GC, one delegation suggested language that
would stress the divergence of views among GC members on the issue.
Another delegate proposed noting the absence of consensus. Following a
lengthy discussion, delegates addressed a reference to “the variety and
divergence of views” on the matter, as a possible solution. A group of
developed countries proposed text requesting the Executive Director to
facilitate high- level consultations linking this issue with “an
effective manage­ment mechanism.” This met with objections from
developing countries, with one delegate noting that the idea of an
executive board is unclear and would, in fact, invalidate the proposal
for universal membership.

On
strengthening the scientific base of UNEP, a developed countries’ group
requested a reference to the establishment of an intergovernmental panel
on global environmental change. Others objected to mentioning this
particular option, which failed to enjoy universal support. The drafting
group accepted the view of a number of countries that only the annex to
the report of the interï¿½governmental consultation, containing government
responses, should be mentioned.

On the
intergovernmental strategic plan for technology support and capacity
building, the question of funding an open-ended interï¿½governmental group
provoked debate, with one country insisting on using original language
from decision SS.VII/1, which spoke of the ï¿½availability of funds other
than the Environmental Fund.ï¿½ A developing country group called for
additional funds for the proposed group. One delegation suggested
deleting reference to using the report of the Executive Director on the
elements for a draft plan as the ï¿½basisï¿½ of the intergovernmental
groupï¿½s future work, with a developing country group insisting on
retaining it. The drafting group agreed to make a reference to ï¿½taking
into considerï¿½ation, inter alia,ï¿½ the elements for a plan.
Delegates suggested references to the EMG playing an active role in
assisting the interï¿½governmental group. Others proposed holding some of
its sessions in Nairobi.

On
strengthening the financing of UNEP, several countries suggested
deleting references to the utilization of a voluntary indicï¿½ative scale
of contributions, and others insisted on retaining it. The section was
debated at length, and language was agreed that notes the indicative
scaleï¿½s pilot phase, as well as welcomes the broadï¿½ening of the donor
base, and an increase in total contributions to the Environment Fund.

On MEAs, a
delegation suggested replacing the existing text with two phrases,
taking note of the Executive Directorï¿½s report on the issue and
reaffirming the relevant paragraphs of the report of the group of
ministers on the IEG. A developed countriesï¿½ group insisted on retaining
the original text.

On
coordination and the EMG, a developed countriesï¿½ groupï¿½s suggestions to
refer to the EMGï¿½s programme of work in the next two years gave rise to
objections from another group, which wished to retain the original short
version of this section.

Earth Negotiations Bulletin coverage stopped
at 10:00 pm

IN THE CORRIDORS

Delegates
appear to have been split over how much the COW should have abided by
procedure and how much they should have allowed for flexibility,
especially during the discussions over the draft decisions. Some
observers were relieved that most delegates were willing to be flexible,
allowing for draft decisions to be considered even though they were
handed in after the deadline, so as not to waste the effort and long
hours that had been put into drafting the decisions. Many delegates also
expressed concern over the short notice given to the COW to examine the
draft decisions.

While
negotiations on the draft omnibus decision on IEG stalled on the
controversial issue of universal membership, several governments met
informally with NGOs to exchange views on the idea of a specialized
agency on the environment. According to some observers this situation is
ironic because this proposal has not been formally introduced into the
discussions on IEG, with the proponents choosing to lobby the NGO sector
instead of addressing the issue in the negotiations, fearing that it
would not ï¿½see the light of day.ï¿½

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

COW:
TheCOW will meet at 10:00 am in Tamna Hall to continue
deliberations on the draft decisions on waste manageï¿½ment, integrated
water resource management, and regional annexes. The drafting group on
IEG is expected to resume in the morning.

PLENARY: Plenary sessions will convene from
9:00 am-1:00 pm in Halla Hall and from 3:00 pm-6:00 pm in Tamna Hall, to
consider inter alia, the report of the President on the
ministerial consultations, adoption of the COW report, and the closure
of the session.

This issue of
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin ï¿½ <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Changbo Bai <changbo@iisd.org>;
Robynne Boyd <robynne@iisd.org>;
Kaori Kawarabayashi <kaori@iisd.org>;
Richard Sherman <rsherman@iisd.org>;
and Andrey Vavilov, Ph.D. <andrey@iisd.org>.
The Digital Editor is David
Fernau <david@iisd.org>.
The Editor is Pamela S.
Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape
(SAEFL), the United Kingdom
(through the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), and the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. General
Support for the Bulletin
during 2004 is provided by
the United Nations
Environment Programme
(UNEP), the Government of
Australia, Austrian Federal
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and
Water Management, the
Ministry of Environment and
the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Sweden, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Norway, Swan
International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for
Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES) and the
Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global
Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin in
French has been provided by
the International
Organization of the
Francophonie (IOF) and the
French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The opinions
expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-212-644-0217 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.